December 15
Category:Planning and Urban Research
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merged to Category:Urban studies and planning schools. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest merging Category:Planning and Urban Research to Category:Urban studies and planning
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. I don't believe there is a meaningful difference between the two. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom unless someone offers some good explanation of why there is some crucial and clear distinction between the two. Has the category creator been notified? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Creator notified. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm uneasy about this proposal. My thinking is that we should have Category:Urban planning, which has a lead article, as the top category and add subcategories as needed. What exactly is urban research? We don't have an article. Likewise for urban studies, but there we have an Index of urban studies articles (which includes Urban planning). So I'm leaning towards renaming Category:Urban studies and planning to Category:Urban planning. Note this is the opposite of a May 2005 discussion. I would then move the study and research articles into Category:Urban design or other subcategories. Another option for Category:Planning and Urban Research would be a rename to Category:Urban planning organizations. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename and/or Merge with Category:Urban studies and planning schools. I created the category with the intention of improving the order within the Category:Urban studies and planning, which currently has over 200 direct entries and does not display on one page. The category was intended to include Research institutes in the field of urban studies and planning. I realise now that the name I gave to the category is not suggestive enough. It could be renamed to Category:Urban research institutes or Category:Urban research organizations. It is also the case that such institutes often combine urban research with education or are part of educational institutions, therefore the category could be merged with Category:Urban studies and planning schools like in the german Wikipedia. Only inconvenience is that the name would be very long such as Category:Urban studies and planning education and research or similar. Elekhh (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't upmerge. First, it is a distinct subcategory and not identical to Category:Urban studies and planning. Second, upmerging will not solve the problem of having too many unordered entries in that category. Elekhh (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:Urban studies and planning schools (changing my !vote after explanation by Elekhh). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (nominator). Merging to Category:Urban studies and planning schools should be fine; it looks like ultimately that's what the distinction was that the category creator intended. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:Urban studies and planning schools per discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:New Zealand Wikipedians
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: KEEP (though one could argue that as an expatriate myself, I'm biased). I'll leave it to others to fix the appropriate templates that will necessarily populate this only temporarily empty category, as Debresser observes below. postdlf (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:New Zealand Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Covered by the page at Category:Wikipedians in New Zealand -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not add my request to have it deleted since I thought that it would be obvious. The category must have been created by an editor not realising that Category:Wikipedians in New Zealand had existed. Category:Wikipedians in New Zealand is in the form of all the other Wikipedian categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is obvious now that you have explained it, but it was not obvious when you nominated it.
- Sorry to be blunt, but I'll take the WP:SPADE approach: deletion discussions are not a guessing or mind-reading game. If you couldn't be bothered to write a few words explaining clearly that you think that the new category is superfluous, and what you propose should be done with it, then why do you think that other editors should bother to try to second-guess your intentions --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are quite a few templates in Category:New Zealand user templates that should really sort into Category:New Zealand Wikipedians. Debresser (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Halophytes and salt-tolerant plants
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Halophytes --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Halophytes and salt-tolerant plants to Category:Halophytes
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. A newbie just wrote at Category talk:Halophytes and salt-tolerant plants, "'Halophytes and salt-tolerant plants' is redundant. I have started Category:Halophytes. These articles need to be recategorized." This I agree with, despite the category page text attempting to draw a distinction. Hesperian 03:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support due to reasons above. Thanks Hesperian! Ecologygirl (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:BigTable implementation
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:BigTable implementation to Category:BigTable implementations
- Nominator's rationale: List-type categories are conventionally plural. Cybercobra (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Can you convince me that this is not OCAT or too small of a category and that it should be kept? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Rename to pluralize. Alansohn (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - 'This are databases system based on Google BigTable paper' is a strange description. Occuli (talk) 06:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OCAT#SMALL, unless (per Vegaswikian's request) there is some evidence that there could be more articles on notable topics to expand this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Now that it's populated (good work, Hmains!), I see no grounds for deletion, and the category name should take the plural form because there is more than one article in this list-type category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- rename per nom. Populated by reading the article which provides the implementions, ready to categorize Hmains (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.